The navigational freedoms are unavoidably curtailed to some degree in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as compared with the traditional high seas freedoms. One of the main reasons for this compromise was to accommodate coastal States’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the newly established maritime zone. Nevertheless, the limitation of the navigational freedoms by the coastal State can only be justified if they are made in accordance with the formula of the attribution of rights and freedoms in the EEZ and must be exercised in good faith and by giving due regard to the exercise of these freedoms and rights. It is noteworthy that coastal States have been able to utilise mechanisms developed by competent international organisations to adopt and implement some of these limitations through the rules of reference, particularly regarding the protection and preservation of the marine environment from international shipping. This chapter first identifies the scope of the preserved freedoms of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, then examines how they may have been affected by the exercise of a coastal State’s rights and jurisdiction, before discusses the remedies to address these impacts.

Military security interests, despite their omission from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, exist in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and have been claimed and protected by both the coastal State and other States from different perspectives. All States may conduct military activities in the EEZ for peaceful purposes, including a foreign State, provided that the operating State has due regard to the rights and duties of other States. The coastal State may only challenge the exercise of a military activity by a foreign State if the activity impedes the exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This chapter sets out the general rules for conducting peacetime military activities at sea under international law before discussing military security interests in the EEZ. Four types of specific military activities conducted in the EEZ are examined by applying the doctrines for attributing and exercising rights and freedoms between the coastal State and other States. The chapter concludes with a discussion of bilateral and regional practice relating to the conduct of military activities in the EEZ and the potential of these mechanisms to mitigate the controversial interpretation and practice between coastal States and other States.

Submarine cables and pipelines laid on the seabed remain the foundation of the global communications network and the offshore energy transportation system that facilitates the increasing globalisation and interconnectedness of the world. The laying of submarine cables and pipelines has been preserved as a freedom to all States in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This chapter examines the increasing challenges faced by States when exercising this freedom and discusses means to prevent and resolve conflicts. First, a number of coastal States have made excessive claims based on a liberal interpretation of relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, such as the requirement of preauthorization of the survey, laying and repair of submarine cables. Secondly, submarine cables and pipelines are subjected to undue interference and damages, both intentional and incidental by other competing uses of ocean space. The coastal State has an important role to play in maintaining and protecting the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines.

This chapter analyses the major negotiation points and deadlock that were overcome, inter alia, regarding the legal status of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The battle between the territorialist and preferentialist was settled in the middle ground of a sui generis maritime zone. The successful outcome of the negotiations is reflected in the package deal set out in Part V and related provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The jurisdictional framework of the EEZ is sustained by two legal doctrines that formulate the body of flexible prescriptions to guide the attribution and exercise of rights and duties by different States. The integrity and stability of the EEZ are further protected by the compulsory third-party dispute settlement mechanism in Part XV that acknowledges the special characteristics of the sui generis legal regime, and through the progressive development of customary law status of the EEZ concept on the basis of State practice.

The acceptance and codification of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) contribute immensely to the remarkable achievements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a packaged deal, and permeates many facets of the successful implementation of law of the sea today. The EEZ concept emerged predominantly to serve economic purposes in balance with preservation of traditional freedoms of the sea. On the doctrine of attribution of rights and freedoms, any matter reasonably connected with economic benefits will ground a derogation pro tanto from the traditional high seas freedoms, whereas the essential navigational and communications freedoms continue to operate to the extent that they are not incompatible with the EEZ. The compromised balance in the EEZ is re-ensured by the doctrine that guides the exercise of the rights and freedoms whereby States need to have due regard to one another. These two legal doctrines further guide the principles to resolve conflicts arising from the attribution of residual rights and the settlement of disputes among State parties. The application of these two legal doctrines has sufficient flexibility for States to maintain a dynamic balance on an ad hoc basis to accommodate the growing and changing needs of States.

Maritime claims and competition for resources often disregard conservation and sustainability, undermining cooperation on environmental protection. The South China Sea presents a case where the rule of law is failing to protect the marine environment. Overlapping maritime claims and open confrontation for control over areas of the SCS culminated in the PCA South China Sea Arbitration. The requirement to cooperate under UNCLOS is at fundamental odds with the competition for natural resources. Even UNCLOS’s due regard mechanism which ensures a balance of rights and interests among coastal and non-coastal States in their uses of EEZs presumes peaceful co-existence and willingness to cooperate. A binding ASEAN Code of Conduct is a possible avenue to enforce a moratorium over the claims and drive urgent cooperation based on Chapter XII to reverse the fast-deteriorating marine environment. The rule of law is relevant to conservation cooperation in the South China Sea.

The rapid development of mega-constellations raises difficult issues of international law, including liability for collisions involving satellites. Establishing ‘causation’ – that the actions of one satellite operator caused a specific collision with another space object and resulted in damage – could be a challenge, especially in the context of knock-on collisions where debris from an initial collision later collides with one or more spacecraft, including satellites. A further challenge is determining, in the absence of binding international rules on the design and operation of satellites, what is ‘reasonable’ behaviour and therefore what constitutes ‘negligence’. This chapter also addresses the interference to astronomy that is increasingly resulting from light and radio spectrum pollution from satellites. A full interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty leads to the conclusion that states are already required to take certain steps, including conducting an environmental impact assessment, before licensing mega-constellations, because of the obligation of ‘due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty’.

The term ‘coastal State’ is not defined under UNCLOS despite being one of the most frequently used terms. In the EEZ, UNCLOS confers upon coastal States both exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction over natural resources and jurisdiction in relation to artificial islands, installations and structure, marine scientific research and environmental protection. However, the scope of these rights and obligations is not always clearly set out in the relevant provisions, requiring further clarification and elaboration. Moreover, due to the new scope of power given to coastal States in the EEZ, the question has arisen as to how coastal States’ rights and obligations in this new maritime zone, as well as coastal States’ rights and obligations in the territorial sea and the high seas, interact with historic claims arising prior to the entry into force of UNCLOS. This chapter analyses the decisions rendered by UNCLOS tribunals addressing the abovementioned issues and assesses the extent to which they have contributed to clarifying relevant rules relating to coastal States’ rights and obligations under the law of the sea.

Chapter 3 examines the general rules of international law that apply in disputed maritime areas. First, it focuses on the possibility of whether a conflict arising in disputed maritime areas can come to threaten international peace and security. Coastal States have approached the UN Security Council on a number of occasions, seeking declarations from it to the effect that as a result of unilateral conduct in disputed areas, a situation had arisen which met the threshold of that international peace and security was put in jeopardy. Further, other relevant general rules under international law, some of which by their nature are related to the treaty obligation of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) LOSC not to hamper or jeopardise (e.g. not aggravating or extending a dispute and the prohibition on abuse of rights), and their status (e.g. are they customary international law rules?) as well as their applicability to disputed maritime areas are explored. The chapter also discusses the possibility of engaging international responsibility, if certain unilateral activities that have been undertaken in disputed areas resulted in a breach of international law.